Telehealth Treatment for Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Review of the Current State in Mobile Health

Low back pain self-management mobile applications: a systematic review on digital platforms

OBJECTIVE

To identify and analyze the features and quality of self-management support of mobile applications available in Brazil for chronic low back pain in adults.

METHOD

A systematic review on the Apple Store® and Google Play® digital platforms. The Self-Management Support Assessment Tool scale was used to assess self-management support and the Institute for Healthcare Informatics Functionality Score scale was used to assess functionality.

RESULTS

Seventeen applications were selected, which included around seven self-management skills. The applications that met the majority of self-management support skills were Pathways, Branch, Pancea, Pain Navigator, and Curable. The Curable, Branch and MoovButh applications had the highest scores, with ten features on the functionality scale.

CONCLUSION

Some applications have the potential to complement in-person treatment in terms of validity, acceptability and clinical usefulness in pain management. However, barriers such as lack of partnership between healthcare providers and patients, limited evidence-based content, social support, cultural relevance, cost, language, security and privacy can limit their sustained use. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022382686.

Effectiveness of Telemedicine for Musculoskeletal Disorders: Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND

Several systematic reviews (SRs) assessing the use of telemedicine for musculoskeletal conditions have been published in recent years. However, the landscape of evidence on multiple clinical outcomes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to summarize the available evidence from SRs on telemedicine for musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

We conducted an umbrella review of SRs with and without meta-analysis by searching PubMed and EMBASE up to July 25, 2022, for SRs of randomized controlled trials assessing telemedicine. We collected any kind of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), and objective measures, including direct and indirect costs. We assessed the methodological quality with the AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2). Findings were reported qualitatively.

RESULTS

Overall, 35 SRs published between 2015 and 2022 were included. Most reviews (n=24, 69%) were rated as critically low quality by AMSTAR 2. The majority of reviews assessed "telerehabilitation" (n=29) in patients with osteoarthritis (n=13) using PROMs (n=142 outcomes mapped with n=60 meta-analyses). A substantive body of evidence from meta-analyses found telemedicine to be beneficial or equal in terms of PROMs compared to conventional care (n=57 meta-analyses). Meta-analyses showed no differences between groups in PREMs (n=4), while objectives measures (ie, "physical function") were mainly in favor of telemedicine or showed no difference (9/13). All SRs showed notably lower costs for telemedicine compared to in-person visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine can provide more accessible health care with noninferior results for various clinical outcomes in comparison with conventional care. The assessment of telemedicine is largely represented by PROMs, with some gaps for PREMs, objective measures, and costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022347366; https://osf.io/pxedm/.

Efficacy of mHealth Interventions for Improving the Pain and Disability of Individuals With Chronic Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Low back pain is one of the main causes of disability worldwide. Individuals with chronic conditions have been widely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, mobile health (mHealth) has become popular, mostly due to the widespread use of smartphones. Despite the considerable number of apps for low back pain available in app stores, the effectiveness of these technologies is not established, and there is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of the isolated use of mobile apps in the self-management of low back pain.

Objective

We summarized the evidence on the effectiveness of mHealth interventions on pain and disability for individuals with chronic low back pain.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mHealth to usual care or no intervention. The search terms used were related to low back pain and mHealth. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability, and the secondary outcome was quality of life. Searches were carried out in the following databases, without date or language restriction: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the Cochrane Library, and OpenGrey, in addition to article references. The risk of bias was analyzed using the PEDro scale. Data were summarized descriptively and through meta-analysis (pain intensity and disability). In the meta-analysis, eligible studies were combined while considering clinical and methodological homogeneity. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) criteria.

Results

A total of 5 randomized controlled trials were included, totaling 894 participants (447 allocated to the mHealth group and 445 to the usual care group), and they had similar methodological structure and interventions. Follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months. The studies did not demonstrate significant differences for pain intensity (mean difference -0.86, 95% CI -2.29 to 0.58; P=.15) and disability (standardized mean difference -0.24, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.20; P=.14) when comparing mHealth and usual care. All studies showed biases, with emphasis on nonconcealed allocation and nonblinding of the outcome evaluator. The certainty of evidence was rated as low for the analyzed outcomes.

Conclusions

mHealth alone was no more effective than usual care or no treatment in improving pain intensity and disability in individuals with low back pain. Due to the biases found and the low certainty of evidence, the evidence remains inconclusive, and future quality clinical trials are needed.

Engagement in an mHealth-Guided Exercise Therapy Program Is Associated With Reductions in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

CONTEXT

Chronic musculoskeletal pain costs the US $980 billion annually. Conservative treatments are the criterion standard, but scalable methods of treatment remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to determine the effects of pain reduction and the perceived benefits of an mHealth exercise therapy program.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective observational study on data from 3109 people (18-98, 49% female) with musculoskeletal pain in an mHealth exercise program. Presession pain was measured via 11-point numeric rating scale and nonstandardized single-item questions for work and quality of life; all were analyzed using mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

By 11 sessions, there was an estimated a 2.09-point decrease in average numeric rating scale pain levels. There was an average percent increase of approximately 0.7 points for work life and quality of life ( tdf =6,632 = 12.06, P < 0.001). User engagement was high; 46% of participants were performing more than one session per day, and 88% were engaging within a week, indicating the feasibility of the deployment of an mHealth exercise app.

CONCLUSIONS

An mHealth exercise program was associated with significant decrease in pain and increased perceived benefits in a large population. These findings serve as preliminary findings of the feasibility for mHealth exercise interventions as scalable tools to improve chronic musculoskeletal pain outcomes.

"Long COVID" results after hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection

Long-term sequelae of symptomatic infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 are largely undiscovered. We performed a prospective cohort study on consecutively hospitalized Sars-CoV-2 patients (March–May 2020) for evaluating COVID-19 outcomes at 6 and 12 months. After hospital discharge, patients were addressed to two follow-up pathways based on respiratory support needed during hospitalization. Outcomes were assessed by telephone consultation or ambulatory visit. Among 471 patients, 80.9% received no respiratory support during hospitalization; 19.1% received non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). 58 patients died during hospitalization, therefore 413 were enrolled for follow-up. At 6 months, among 355 patients, the 30.3% had any symptoms, 18.0% dyspnea, 6.2% neurological symptoms. Fifty-two out of 105 had major damages in interstitial computed tomography images. NIV/IMV patients had higher probability to suffer of symptoms (aOR = 4.00, 95%CI:1.99–8.05), dyspnea (aOR = 2.80, 95%CI:1.28–6.16), neurological symptoms (aOR = 9.72, 95%CI:2.78–34.00). At 12 months, among 344, the 25.3% suffered on any symptoms, 12.2% dyspnea, 10.1% neurological symptoms. Severe interstitial lesions were present in 37 out of 47 investigated patients. NIV/IMV patients in respect to no respiratory support, had higher probability of experiencing symptoms (aOR = 3.66, 95%CI:1.73–7.74), neurological symptoms (aOR = 8.96, 95%CI:3.22–24.90). COVID-19 patients showed prolonged sequelae up to 12 months, highlighting the need of follow-up pathways for post-COVID-19 syndrome.

Comparison of the effectiveness of an e-health program versus a home rehabilitation program in patients with chronic low back pain: A double blind randomized controlled trial

OBJETIVE

We conducted a randomized double blind clinical trial, to compare the effectiveness of McKenzie exercises and electroanalgesia via an e-Health program versus a home rehabilitation program on functionality, pain, fear of movement and quality of life in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Seventy-four participants with non-specific chronic low back pain were randomized to either the e- Health program group (n = 39) or the home rehabilitation program group (n = 35). The interventions consisted of the e-Health program group performing McKenzie exercises and received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, while the home rehabilitation group attended an information session to explain the exercises, which they then performed at home with printed instructions. Both groups performed 3 weekly sessions for 8 weeks. The following were analyzed main measures: pain, disability, fear of movement, quality of life, trunk muscle endurance and trunk anteflexion motion were assessed at baseline and at 2 months.

RESULTS

Independent samples Student's t-tests showed that although the patients who followed the e-Health program showed significantly greater improvement than those who followed the home disability rehabilitation program in terms of intensity of pain, lumbar flexion mobility (P < 0.001), and the following dimensions of quality of life (P < 0.005), both groups improved significantly in the immediate post-treatment follow up compared with baseline scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic low back pain who followed an unsupervised home intervention supported by an individualized video exercise program showed greater post-treatment improvement than those who followed the same program with printed instructions.